Obviously, the people who get annoyed by that comment are those who have not exploited their gear at the maximum. Which means that they have wasted money on their current equipment.

If this is true, we could all spend a life time with a point and shoot, and still fail to produce better images than those who truly mastered using one.

Thankfully, it isn't true. They've only "wasted money" if the added utility of the more expensive equipment is less than the utility (to them) of the extra money they spent on it.

If I get $1500 worth of joy in jumping from a Rebel to a 5D Mark II (and what constitutes $1500 worth depends entirely on my subjective preferences) then it is not a waste to buy one. There is no rule that says that I have some obligation to spend a certain amount of time using cheaper equipment and maximizing the results obtained from it to acquire skills that make me "worthy" of a more expensive camera.

Of course those who want to maximize the results from a point and shoot before buying a more expensive camera are welcome to do so. But those people will never own an SLR (and never upgrade their point and shoot)

Quote

Remind me, why are you waiting for 5D3 / 1Ds 4?

I'm not in the class of people who have to own a camera that doesn't exist but I did buy a full frame and I'm pretty sure that there are some much better photographers using much cheaper equipment. The reason was that I really enjoy using it for taking the types of pictures that I take. I don't see it in terms of "going further with my skills". I am not a pro and I don't participate in photography contests, so have no interest in "going further". Indeed, I think one could "go further" with a point and shoot, and if "going further" were truly the goal, one might be better served by using a variety of very inexpensive cameras.

What the heck kind of disingenuous question is that? A Nikon fan page with 800,000+ likes, and they wonder if any of those 800,000 people have a Nikon lens? I suppose if they have to wonder about that, they're completely slamming their own lens quality, and maybe they think all their customers buy Sigma lenses instead?

I once ran into someone who bought a 7D + 85mm f/1.2 L + 580EX II as his FIRST ever kit. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and took a lot of stuff that more experienced photog's could take with an iPhone.

I would only go as far as saying the equipment should match the skill level of the user. Both are equally important.

I agree both are important:

But unless this guy took a loan out from his kid's college fund, I find nothing wrong in his choice or his purchase. Looks like he did his research, zoned in on a prime lens (most noobs like me would try and get max coverage from 15mm to 400mmm regardless of the speed of the lenses...) that is fast and sharp.

Why should he be asked to buy a rebel kit lens when all of us would not... The only wrong thing I can see is if he thinks he can shoot like an Art or Ansel or any great guys on this forum without learning how to shoot.

I gave my 350d and kit lens to my 12 year old daughter trying to get her into this wonderful hobby... She might take 100 pics and have 10 turn out really great... but the limitations of the kit lens then comes into play... if she had better gear, those could have been even better....

I just got my first L lens a month ago... my skills are still the same as a month ago, but my successful rate has gone up significantly. For example: Pictures with L lens dont burn out highlights as much as kit lens do, I don't know why but no one told me this would be one reason to get an L lens...

I am not saying gear is more important than skills, but gear WILL make a difference, so kudos to that guy to get decent gear.

I once ran into someone who bought a 7D + 85mm f/1.2 L + 580EX II as his FIRST ever kit. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and took a lot of stuff that more experienced photog's could take with an iPhone.

I would only go as far as saying the equipment should match the skill level of the user. Both are equally important.

Maybe an unscrupulous sales person talked him into it. But nothing wrong with buying a 7D as a first DSLR... for example a parent who walks into a camera shop and wants a camera to take decent pictures of kids playing sports... it would be fair/honest for the salesperson to offer a 7D as an appropriate body I think.

Now the 85/1.2L might be inappropriate to recommend to a beginner. But hey if a customer walks into a shop and demands to buy it the salesperson aint gonna say no, but if it was recommended or pushed on a customer that's just mean and greedy... why... because he sold the wrong body, 7D is for sports and salesperson knows the customer will have to come back and get a 5D2 the next week to make the best use of the 85 f/1.2 for portraits

« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 11:58:44 AM by Meh »

Logged

Tarrum

Owning more expensive equipment will help you with better pictures, but only if you understand it to the maximum. Sure, I've seen plenty of people with expensive cameras that had no clue, but once they learned they started to shine. And who are we to judge what equipment they should buy, when I was buying my first camera I was so desperate trying to find out if Canon or Nikon makes better pictures. After a bit of experience, I found it it doesn't matter - so I guess most photographers have to experience something like that to truly respect and understand it's more about them.

Do any of our facebook fans use any of the NIKKOR lenses? - No they're fans for no reason..

I find this whole situation amusing. Nikon was obviously trying to stroke some of their user base and make them feel good about buying stuff, but it got picked up by everybody else. No harm done really - though it's good they apologized.

One thing I like about photography is it has both a technical and an artistic side - the technical side says "buy the best camera / lenses/ etc.... can I just get 2 more stops of light ... while the artistic side tries to express something through photography. Most photographers I know are stronger in one suit than the other - I'm better technically than artistically, for example. As much as I would enjoy futzing with new lenses and camera bodies I think I'd be better off focusing on better composition, capturing more emotion, telling better stories though photography. For someone who's got the artistic side nailed they might be shocked at what they can do with an extra two stops of light and a sharper image.

So Nikon is full of it for about half the photography population, IMHO.

mortadella

There are reasons why photography schools/classes exist, and its not to train the camera. if it were just the gear and nothing else all you would need to be a good photographer is a deep pocket. The Nikon Fb status is rather ignorant, however I don't see the reason why people were offended. Better gear can expand ones potential, yes, but skill of the photographer is 1st and gear a distant 2nd.

if it were just the gear and nothing else all you would need to be a good photographer is a deep pocket. The Nikon Fb status is rather ignorant...

I kind of felt that way when I first read it but the Nikon FB post didn't say that and I don't think it's what was meant. It said the photographer is only as good as the equipment. In other words, no matter how good the photographer is, if the gear is inadequate in some way then there will be limits to what he/she can accomplish. I think that's a true statement. It doesn't mean the photographer doesn't matter, or that you can't take a great shot with camera phone, or a compact, or a kit lens, etc. but only that the photographer will be limited by the equipment.

Now being from Nikon of course what they would like people to do is buy more and better gear but that's the business the business they're in so I suppose we should forgive them their obviously self-serving statements. Maybe it comes across as an offensive, ignorant, irritating statement because it's from Nikon and we feel like they're trying to sell us something we don't really need.

Isn't it always true that we are limited by equipment? No matter how good you are you can't take a picture that the gear is incapable of capturing. Sports photography is almost impossible with a P&S and it's pretty tough to take candid street photography if you're walking around with a 1D4 and 300mm lens.

Give a novice a 300D with kit lens (55-250 or 75-300 III) and ask him to use Auto mode/P mode (like P&S) and ask him to take a portrait at 100mm. Using a tripod and natural light coming from a window.

Give the same guy a 7D and a 100mm f2 or f2.8 with the camera on the same tripod and all he has to do is pull the trigger in auto mode.

Which one will be better?

Did he need to understand it to the maximum? All he did was pull the trigger.

Even for complete noobs, better gear will make a difference... some difference

I whole heartedly agree with this. It is (or at least can be) similar to golf. I suck at golf. I will always suck at golf. However, buying a good set of clubs helps me to suck just a little bit less at golf. Similarly, I may never be a great photographer, but decent equipment can help some of my pictures to suck a little less. I doubt anyone on here woud say a photo out of kit lens is going to match the exact same photo taken with L glass. Without changing the composition or the lighting or anything else, it should be sharper with better color, etc., all the great things that L glass can give you.